About 20 mins from where I live the department of corrections relocated a paedophile rapist into a street full of kids. This individual had previously been labeled by a shrink to never be released. Thank God this person got moved back into prison grounds after an uproar by the community.

What place does a multiple violent offender have in society. Wouldn't you think they have given up that right at the point of offending for the second time?.

If you could choose to live next door to a repeat sicko, or a refugee, who would you choose?. I know who I would take my chances with, and I know where these serial sex offenders need to be relocated to.

StG, I understand your concerns about serial sex offenders, but not about refugees. You seem to be suggesting that it is almost a toss-up between them as to who is worse – the likes of Fardon or refugees in general. That doesn’t sound like a reasonable comparison to me at all.

Could you please elucidate your concerns. Thanks

Being a survivor, I would prefer that they never be released and anyone would be better to have as a neighbour than a first or repeat offender.

Dear Stg,

Are you serious? How can you equate refugees with sex offenders?
Refugees have suffered terribly (they are afterall refugees - who come to this country because they have no choice, to escape hell), whereas sex offenders cause and inflict suffering. There's no
logical comparison or connection here between the two.

What are you really trying to get at here? Sorry, I don't understand why you started this thread - it makes no sense. (Except to provoke).

Why on earth would you compare Fardon with a refugee?

I'm going to give StG the benefit of the doubt here and assume that the post is a challenge to people who complain about refugees. Nobody but nobody wants to live anywhere near a repeat sex offender except maybe other repeat sex offenders.

There are a lot of people living in that area who complain about refugees as if refugees are as bad as repeat sex offenders. It seems to me the question is being put to Hanson supporters. I for one would rather live next door to a refugee than a racist, but we can't always choose our neighbours, can we?

chainsmoker: "I for one would rather live next door to a refugee than a racist, but we can't always choose our neighbours, can we?"

Quite so, and to my mind that would be a far better hypothetical question. In fact, I'm on record in this forum as saying that I'd much prefer to have a quiet Muslim family living next door than a mob of redneck yobbos.

Chainsmoker, I got the same interpretation of the original post as you did - more of a dig at those that have been loudly whinging about refugees than a serious comparison of the two.

To follow the line the discussion has taken though, there has to be some point drawn in the sand where an offender reliquishes their rights beyond that of any arbitrary prison sentence. At the same time though, we probably need to draw a line between different types of offenders, and even different types of sex offenders. For example the older partner involved in under-age consensual sex, is labelled a sex offender. Whilst this act may be morally bankrupt, we probably need to look to the impact of the crime on the victim, rather than being too quick to stick wide labels on offenders. Someone in this category is a vastly different risk to society in general than a serial rapist (or even one-time violent rapist), or paedophile.

The choice between castration and release or permanent gaol should be the only choice for repeat sexual offenders. Very few if any hawe proven to be trustworthy after being released from prison Amazing how everyone suddenly find absolutes when it comes to paedophiles. What refugees and paedophiles have in common I have no idea.

My reading of this initial post is that the writer believes refugees are second only to paedophiles on the scum-of-the-earth barometer, but I could have misread it, the point of the post didn't seem all that clear.

I don't see any parallels to be drawn between the two groups other than the fact that they are both victims. I'm not defending paedophiles, their crimes are thoroughly indefensible, but they are invariably the victims of a neglectful and abusive upbringing. They need to pay for their crimes, but it should be a punishment meted out by our legal system, not by a self-appointed and self-righteous suburban vigilante movement.

Geez everyone, cut the forum member some slack

Let them explain themselves before you get on your highhorses.

I for one interpreted the initial post to be an assessment of societal risk. For example, you could say that your risk of violent domestic invasion (by mistake) would be increased if a cop lived next door to you; you could say that the risk of late night party noise might be higher if a bunch of uni students lived next door to you; you could hypothesise anything you like about anyone in terms of maybes and mights, so let him explain himself first before jumping to conclusions.

STG! That is not one of your most intelligent posts. We all clap your concerns, but you need to put forward an apology to all our new guests that now live with us. The man in question should never be released! Refugees is a whole different subject. Don't you ever bring the two together again. Your IQ just dropped very sharply. I think you are better than that.

If the sex offender wanted to 'marry' the victim.....would it lessen his guilt ?

Is there something 'inherrently evil' about old men having sex with young children ?

It's about time the HYPOCRISY was abandoned and we learn to tell things as they really ARE.........

SEX....with CHILDREN....is evil.. for anyone...and any time......

Unless.....you agree with the idea that culture is relative and that it's actually OK for old men to have sexual relations with small children... under the guise of marraige.

Well..I don't...never have..never will..

Don't even think about criticizing this.

there are Australians who are as bad as rapists & some refugees can be & who were let off the hook by other Australians.

Boazy: "Don't even think about criticizing this."

Sez who?

Our most easily dog-whistled contributor decides to run with StG's odious comparison and extend it: so now we are clearly supposed to infer somehow that there is an association generally of paedophilia with refugees.

You're off your trolley, Boazy - and offensively so. You wonder why some of us think you spread hatred in your posts here?

woops... CJ.... if that is how my post was sounding then I have to offer profuse apologies..

but to set the record straight... I did not have refugees in mind in the slightest way and was not trying to connect them with paedophiles.

I had a different thing in mind...and by now... you of all people would know what that is.

Refugees.. are two types.

a) Genuine.
b) Fake.

I don't think there would be many 'genuine' refugees turning up on our shores OTHER than those who come by the official pathway..and I'm most reluctant to accept any other story. There are just tooooooo many countries between us and the main trouble spots for that to be true.

If a boat full of 'refugees' from Dafur rolled up on our shores.. would they be 'genuine' refugees ? sure they would.. in ONE sense.. but having gone past MANY other safe countries..... to get 'here'..... it morphs them from 'genuine refugee' into 'country shopper'...sorry but true.

Boazy: " but to set the record straight... I did not have refugees in mind in the slightest way and was not trying to connect them with paedophiles.

I had a different thing in mind...and by now... you of all people would know what that is.

Refugees.. are two types.

a) Genuine.
b) Fake."

Yeah right, Boazy. So why did you feel the need to babble on about old men having sex with children? And linking that with cultural relativism?

FYI,
I was browsing for some video gear last night when I saw this on an australian site.

Voyeur Camera Filter That Sees Though Clothes Back On Sale
An SLR camera and camcorder filter that allows voyeurs to capture naked images of women and children by shooting right through clothes is back on sale and can now be purchased in Australia via an online web site.

Sorry, most of you guys missed the point.

We have refugees who usually have a genuine reason for being a refugee but we put them in concentration camps in the middle of the desert yet we are comfortable with putting repeat child rapists back into the community. Repeat child rapists are trusted in our society more than a refugee from a humanitarian crisis or a war.

I would trust living next door to a refugee while they wait for the department of immigration to process their status. But they are out in a desert somewhere while I can get a child rapist implanted next door to me.

THE PAEDOPHILE SHOULD BE "OUT BUSH", NOT THE REFUGEE.

Legislation is ALL round the wrong way.

Thanks for the slack Spritegal.

Was an interesting look at everyone. Who's the attack dog?. Once again, please try and interpret content rather than react to a title of a post.

The government would lead us to believe that refugees are more of a threat than paedophiles because they are in internment camps in the middle of nowhere and we have repeat sickos living next door.

Thanks for clarifying, StG. Of course I agree with your second post, but unfortunately your initial post was sufficiently ambiguous that our resident refugee hater used it as a pretext for one of his typically ugly, hateful posts.

I accept that wasn't what you meant, but I guess you might need to be a bit more judicious in composing your next catchy headline :)

StG, thanks for the clarification.

I think you have a most unfortunate view of our asylum seeker problems.

There is no way that asylum seekers should be allowed to move freely in society. Experience overseas and early on in Australia was of asylum seekers absconding or otherwise not cooperating. That directly led to the detention centre regime. Razor wire and guards were then implemented after numerous breakouts.

The deterrence factor is also very important. There is the potential for hundreds of thousands of asylum seeker to mobilise and head for Australia, if we are seen to be a soft touch.

Of course Australia has every right to have full control over its borders, and certainly of any movement of people into this country outside of our legal channels.

So, as much as I don’t like Howard’s overall politics, I support him fully on his approach to asylum seekers since the time of the Tampa.

As for paedophiles, I don’t believe that they should just be locked up indefinitely, unless they have committed repeat offences and/or demonstrated no or poor rehabilitation.

I would say that refugees are most definitely more of a threat than paedophiles. That is not to belittle refugees or asylum seekers in any way, it is just a reflection of the potential magnitudes of the two issues.

SPRITEGIRL... your mild rebuke was timely :) and I accept it.

yes.. Stg's point was about the silliness of a legal system which allows paedophiles out....but really he must be reacting to an unusual case no ? I've not heard much of this kind of thing going on.

IMPORTANT QUESTION....

Stg.. you said "I'd be happy for a refugee to be housed next door" etc.. but not a Paedo.

FOOD 4 THOUGHT.

IF.....the 'refugee' planted next to you had a view that 'old men having sex with children' is NOT...paedophilia but rather.. QUITE acceptable... would you feel as comfy?

Which was my reaction to your point. I think you need to look much deeper than the simple 'physical presense' of a 'refugee' and into what 'values' they are bringing to Australia.

Ludwig: "I would say that refugees are most definitely more of a threat than paedophiles."

In the context of this discussion, I couldn't disagree with you more. So you'd prefer a convicted paedophile living in your neighbourhood than a few refugees? You obviously don't have children, or care very much about the children of others.

While I don't actually agree that paedophiles and other sex offenders should automatically be demonised, they are far more deserving of social antipathy than are refugees - whose only 'crime' is that they have been forced from their homelands by war, famine, or political and religious oppression.

Boazy: "IF.....the 'refugee' planted next to you had a view that 'old men having sex with children' is NOT...paedophilia but rather.. QUITE acceptable... would you feel as comfy?"

Yes, that's exactly what you meant the first time, wasn't it? You're such a hateful bulldust artist. So how many refugees regard "having sex with children" as being "QUITE acceptable", you old dog-whistler? Please provide verifiable evidence to support your noxious inference.

You really are a disgrace.

Posted by BOAZ_David

"IF.....the 'refugee' planted next to you had a view that 'old men having sex with children' is NOT...paedophilia but rather.. QUITE acceptable... would you feel as comfy?."

Put that in another thread and I'll answer it.

You, again;

"Stg's point was about the silliness of a legal system which allows paedophiles out....but really he must be reacting to an unusual case no ? I've not heard much of this kind of thing going on."

What do YOU think happens to paedophiles after the serve their sentences?.

“So you'd prefer a convicted paedophile living in your neighbourhood than a few refugees?”

CJ, you obviously completely misunderstand me, although I thought I put it clearly enough.

I’d prefer to have a refugee (or fifty refugees) living next door to me rather than a paedophile any day.

Yes paedophiles deserved to be loathed. No refugees don’t deserve any social antipathy.

But the potential scale of a national refugee / asylum seeker influx could cause untold greater social upheaval than a ten-fold increase in paedophilia, with all of them being released in the community with a slap on the hand.

Posted by Ludwig

"As for paedophiles, I don’t believe that they should just be locked up indefinitely, unless they have committed repeat offences and/or demonstrated no or poor rehabilitation."

I have a certain amount of belief in our judicial system. I just believe that judges and the judicial support can be slightly detached from reality. I think there needs to be a massive overhaul of sentencing and consequences for an individual's actions. How many kids need to be spiritually destroyed by one individual before we say they can't play well with others?. Some people are SO deficient and detached from what we consider acceptable social behaviour that maybe we should consider another option...

Everyone makes mistakes, and screws up (talking about the WHOLE scheme of things), but when does it cross from an error in judgement to habitual?. Being caught once or twice or or TEN times?. Our society has no official avenue of recourse against these individuals. They just get released and ostracised over and over. It's a self perpetuating cycle.

At some point they need to be removed from our society after proving they can't co-exist with the rest of us.

I fully agree StG.

STG,
I fail to see how a sensible,decent, moral etc. human being could possibly disagree with your last comment. Why do so many always use isolated cases as an example for problems which affect the whole of society. A paedophile IS NOT A NORMAL HUMAN BEING & therefore should not receive the amount of benefit of the doubt they're getting. Authorities spend endless sums of money on those creeps whereas a decent member of society has to mortgage their home in order to clear their name after being falsely accused of whatever. Re refugees, of course there are genuine refugees but how does one establish which one is genuine & which one is not. As to your original question I'd like to say that no-one should have to live next door to a paedophile because those sickos shouldn't be anywhere outside jail or better not around at all. Why don't we let victims & parents of victims decide what's to be done with a proven paedophile. However, when someone is deliberately falsely accused then that individual should get much, much more support then what they get now.

Ludwig: "But the potential scale of a national refugee / asylum seeker influx could cause untold greater social upheaval than a ten-fold increase in paedophilia, with all of them being released in the community with a slap on the hand"

Thanks for your clarification. However, while I agree with limiting absolute numbers of immigrants to Australia on environmental grounds, I advocate increasing the proportion of refugees among those who we do allow to migrate to Australia. That is, reduce net immigration, but increase the number of refugees relative to economic immigrants. I fail to see how such a strategy can cause any kind of "social upheaval".

On the other hand, I'm quite sure that any government that began releasing paedophiles into the community with a perceived "slap on the hand" would very quickly find itself the object of substantial social protest.

“… while I agree with limiting absolute numbers of immigrants to Australia on environmental grounds, I advocate increasing the proportion of refugees among those who we do allow to migrate to Australia.”

Absolutely CJ.

Lets reduce immigration to at least net zero and increase the refugee component. That is, reduce the total to ~30 000 per annum and double the refugee intake to make up the bulk of that; perhaps up to 28 000.

My main concern about refugee influx that could lead to social upheaval is outside of our formal immigration channels, through the onshore asylum seeker method.

I’m also concerned about our current high immigration rate leading to social upheaval. But I’ll leave that subject for another day.

At the time of the Tampa, in August 2001, there was an enormous escalation in the number of asylum seekers mobilising towards Australia. Strong action was needed. We were on the cusp of having an asylum seeker issue ten or maybe a hundred times worse than what eventuated. I reckon that could have caused some pretty major social disruption. So I support Howard’s so-called Pacific solution, and I think that anyone who doesn’t, fails to realise just how serious the situation was then or how important strong border protection is.

I fear that we could face a huge and much more determined influx of desperate people as climate change bites.

Individual, there is an enormous spectrum of cases that fall under the banner of paedophilia, ranging from people who commit a single offence of a very minor type that just falls within the accepted definition and who are totally remorseful and reformable, to multiple repeat offenders who are clearly psychopathic.

We cannot lump them all together. We cannot treat them all the same. Each case needs to be treated on its merits.

Many paedophiles CAN be safely returned to society. The trick is to have the right sort of rehabilitation and monitoring regimes…. and certainly NOT to just say that once someone has been labelled a paedophile, they have no chance of returning to mainstream society and are either forced to stay in prison or live on the fringes or in a surreptitious manner.

With respect, it is precisely the sort of people that hold the strongly polarised views that you seem to hold, that lead to pressure for authorities to not tell the community about paedophiles that are being accommodated in their area.

Vigilantism is a major concern, undertaken by those who may know nothing other than that a certain person has been convicted of paedophilia, without knowing the nature of their offence or their rehab… and without wanting to know.

“However, when someone is deliberately falsely accused then that individual should get much, much more support then what they get now.”

Of course. But let’s extend that to many convicted paedophiles. Many are genuinely remorseful and need a lot of support, not only for their own good, but for that of the community.

“A paedophile IS NOT A NORMAL HUMAN BEING…”

Um, sorry, but a paedophile very often is. This sort of thing, as with all manner of other crimes, has been with us since the dawn of civilisation. It can be thought of as normal, within the very wide gamut of human behaviour.

Don’t get me wrong. I am repulsed by child molesters and the like. But I’m just trying to inject a bit of balance into the discussion.

Ludwig,
I know that a balance is needed. we need a balance in society. We're losing the see-saw effect in what's acceptable & what's not. We now have too many who say "something needs to be done" sitting at one end of the plank. Anybody can say that but who knows what that something is. You say "The trick is to have the right sort of rehabilitation and monitoring regimes......" Well, what is that trick ? Ludwig everyone on these forums basically wants to see a better society & many want "something" done about it. Why can't people agree that if someone did something wrong retribution is in order as is punishment. What exactly is the difficulty in grasping that concept. There are too many in our midst who are so wharped that they are incapable of distinguishing between right & wrong. Do you really believe that as you say "a single offence of a very minor type that just falls within the accepted definition" would be seen as such by a parent ? Why is it always us that is asked to show compassion ? How about asking those "remorseful human beings" to control themselves up front & we wouldn't need this discussion. I know these are harsh words Ludwig but I have spent half my life amogst people who are always "sorry" after an offence & before the next one.

Ludwig

"Many paedophiles CAN be safely returned to society. The trick is to have the right sort of rehabilitation and monitoring regimes…. and certainly NOT to just say that once someone has been labelled a paedophile, they have no chance of returning to mainstream society and are either forced to stay in prison or live on the fringes or in a surreptitious manner."

I applaud this statement. I agree we need a nuanced approach to what is a wide ranging and complex problem. We don't know the history of these people. We haven't heard the courtroom proceedings and don't know whether or not there may be extenuating circumstances. Let's leave it to the judicial system which is across all the issues relating to each case. It may not get it right every time, but it has served Australia well over many years and on balance has arrived at the best decision in the vast majority of cases. There are no simplistic solutions to this problem. The sight of vigilante crowds hurling abuse and baying for blood is quite ugly and a rather disturbing development. As well as punishment, we have to look at the trends in society which are helping shape these people. They are not born inherently evil, a set of circumstances over time has created that compulsion to abuse. Our task is to find out what these are and to do something about minimising them.

Ludwig

"I support Howard’s so-called Pacific solution, and I think that anyone who doesn’t, fails to realise just how serious the situation was then or how important strong border protection is."

Those who don't support Howard's so-called Pacific solution are very likely to be the people who know firsthand the way it slowly but surely destroys the lives of those caught up in it. If you had visited Nauru for yourself I'm sure you would never make that statement. There are men there now who have endured unimaginable torture and horror and they are spending their days just waiting with nothing to do and no future to plan for. They will all end up with mental problems to one degree or another. One there at the moment has shrapnel embedded in his brain and is receiving no medical treatment. These men (and one is only seventeen) are proven refugees, but all are just left waiting in limbo for another country to accept them. It will take years, if it ever happens. We are destroying these men's lives no question about it. The so-called Pacific solution is only a solution if you can ignore the individual lives it ruins. Your argument is that these men are expendable for the greater good of Australia. I don't buy it. It's inhumane and immoral. It's also stupid because these people would contribute like no others if given a second chance at life.

“Those who don't support Howard's so-called Pacific solution are very likely to be the people who know firsthand the way it slowly but surely destroys the lives of those caught up in it.”

Bronwyn, they can see how hard it can be for some of those caught up in it. But they can’t see much else.

They can’t see that if our border protection had been much weaker, vastly more people would have been caught up in it. If we had accepted all asylum seekers that came our way, we would just be asking for a massive escalation in numbers.

And if that had been the case, sympathy or tolerance from the Australian general public and politicians would have been much less and people would have been dealt with much more harshly.

Dealing with desperate asylum seekers has surely got to be one of the most difficult things for any country or government to do. Dealing with them in a humane way while upholding refugee criteria, border-protection policy and deterrence is just fraught with difficulty.

There are always going to be glitches. We can’t expect everyone to be treated entirely equally, no matter how we might try.

But I think that it is now time for those on Nauru that have been found to be refugees to be accommodated in Australia. The deterrence message is strong enough for that to happen without triggering more boatloads heading our way. So if we can just quickly deal with those that are caught in limbo and hopefully put a lid on the whole business, that would be great.

Individual, could you please elaborate on this statement;

“Why can't people agree that if someone did something wrong retribution is in order as is punishment.”

You wrote;

“Do you really believe that as you say ‘a single offence of a very minor type that just falls within the accepted definition’ would be seen as such by a parent ?”

Most of the time no. Neither a parent nor just about any individual that has had a paedophilic crime imposed upon them is likely to genuinely forgive the perpetrator. But then the same can be said for just about any crime. So should we lock away all criminals who have ever affected innocent peoples’ lives? No of course not. Should we be able to take retribution against known robbers, dangerous drivers, etc? Of course not. So why single out paedophiles?

I absolutely detest people who speed, tailgate or otherwise drive in a dangerous manner. Their crimes are very significant in terms of the risks on our roads for our safety and indeed our lives. For me and I guess for most people, they constitute the most frequent and the most significant exposure to unlawful, offensive and risky behaviour that we and our kids are subjected to. And yet our society is remarkably tolerant of them.

So again, why single out paedophiles when there are so many other forms of crime around us of the same order of magnitude for which practically no one suggests retribution or removal from their community?

Let’s put the crime of paedophilia into context here.

Ludwig,

Paedophiles are "singled out" as you put it - for one main reason -
They prey on children ...

Of course Foxy.

But they are not alone in preying on our kids or causing increased risk to their wellbeing.

Drug peddlers, dangerous drivers and all manner of other criminals threaten our kids’ health and safety.

So do you think that it is fair and reasonable to single out paedophiles?

Dear Ludwig,

Pedophilia - is a sexual desire in an adult for a child.

You ask me am I being fair in singling out pedophiles when there are others who also do harm to children?

You think about what you're saying to me, then take an intelligent
guess as to the answer ...

Our task is to find out what these are and to do something about minimising them.
Bronwyn,
Another Something. I ask again on this discussion, "what something" ? Somthings don't offer any solution ! So-far as your faith in the australian judicial system is concerned, I hope for your sake that you never become a victim.
Paedophiles are very low beings indeed & must not be given the benefit of the doubt. The only ones lower than that are those who falsely accuse others of this sickening behaviour.

Foxy, it was a simple question that deserved a straightforward answer, instead of an implication of subintelligence of the person who asked it.

It is often necessary on this sort of forum to ask really basic questions. Afterall, I don’t know you from a bar of soap and I’ve got no idea, beyond the few words that you have posted here, of what your motivations and opinions really are.

I would suggest to you that it is NOT fair or reasonable to single out paedophiles. The magnitude of pedophilic crimes varies enormously as it does with all categories of crime. There can be no doubt that serious drug crimes for example, are vastly worse than the minor end of the spectrum of pedophilia.

the minor end of the spectrum of pedophilia.
ludwig,
do you really believe that when paedophilia is concerned that you can put a degree on it ? it's like saying he only hurt the kid a littlebit, besides the kid's too young to remember. It may be part of normal human behaviour in your book but in my book it also is part of human behaviour to chastise paedophiles from one end of the spectrum to the other.

Oh dear individual. Surely you are not suggesting that they should all just be treated the same!?

Do you think a female school teacher who had a one-night stand with a male minor, with his consent and which caused him no harm, should be treated the same as the ringleader of a child pornography network or a serial child rapist?

Of COURSE there are ‘degrees’ of paedophilia.

Mr Ludwig,

Pedophiles may not be alone in preying on small children - but they are the most repugnant.

As for your deserving a straight forward answer from me - well, as you told me - you don't know me from a bar of soap... And, I don't know the last time you washed...

So I don't know what you deserve...

My telling you Sir, to think about what you're saying to me, then take an intelligent guess as to the answer - did not imply any subintelligence on your part - on the contrary - my assumption was - that you did have the intelligence to work things out for yourself.

Do you think a female school teacher who had a one-night stand with a male minor, with his consent and which caused him no harm....
Ludwig,
that scenario is not paedophilia. that's just a cheap excuse for legal parasites to make a dollar.

“So I don't know what you deserve...”

Yes you do Foxy….surely you’d realise that every poster deserves a straightforward logical response to a direct question asked in good faith, unless they have written something that is strongly and deliberately personally offensive to you. That’s just basic forum etiquette, isn’t it?

It is also rather important for any argument that you are putting forward that you be seen to be able to answer any queries addressed to you.

You have a nice manner (“Dear Ludwig”, “Mr Ludwig”, “Sir”). I appreciate that. But it needs to not be compromised by belittling non-answers to direct questions.

“Pedophiles may not be alone in preying on small children - but they are the most repugnant.”

SOME are highly repugnant. Not all.

I guess you now agree that the magnitude of paedophilic crimes varies enormously as it does with all categories of crime, and that paedophiles per se must NOT be singled out, but rather, each case must be considered on its own circumstances?

Individual, I must say I was expecting a response just like that.

You have not addressed my point; that there ARE ‘degrees’ of paedophilia; which was written in direct response to your point expressing the opposite view. So do you now agree or not?

“that scenario is not paedophilia. that's just a cheap excuse for legal parasites to make a dollar.”

I agree that this particular scenario should not be considered to be paedophilia. But technically it is.

It is not a matter of legal parasites profiting from it, it is a matter of an innocent but unfortunate oversimplification of the law, or overencompassment of sexual situations involving minors under the banner of paedophilia.

Although it would be hard to remove it from under the paedophilia banner, because the reverse situation of a male teacher and a female student would still be highly frowned upon, which then creates the problem of blatant sexual discrimination if it is not going to apply where post-puberty male minors are involved. So it is not that straightforward.

Mr Ludwig,

It's not me who is 'singling out' pedophiles as you put it. It's the
laws of the society in which we live. The Crimes Act describes
age categories - where sexual activity with a young person is
unlawful, and attaches different consequences to each one.

And, yes, I do find pedophilia - repugnant. And no, I do not think that each case should be look at individually. The sexual penetration of a child is inexcusable.

I feel that way because I have spent my entire life within a certain culture - into which I was born. I see my own norms and values as inevitable rather than optional and I judge behaviour by the standards of my culture (including my religious beliefs)

Foxy

"And, yes, I do find paedophilia repugnant."

Agreed.

"The sexual penetration of a child is inexcusable."

Agreed.

"And no, I do not think that each case should be looked at dindividually."

What are you suggesting here? That we lock every child molester away for the rest of their lives, no questions asked? On current trends, it will become impractical not to mention enormously costly. Are you prepared to have a gaol built in your neighbourhood? Because we're going to need an awful lot of them. Law and order solutions in themselves will do nothing to control the problem.

Our limited funding and human resources should be directed toward research into the root causes. We need to determine the contributing factors and then set about mitigating their effect. They might include things like:

A lack of community services

An increase in the availability of pornography

The increased sexualisation of children's images in the modelling and advertising industries

The fact that parents work longer hours and children spend more time unsupervised

The lack of impulse control brought about through drugs and alcohol

The obsession of our media more generally in promoting the sexualised image

The fact that our advertising industry seems to be predicated on the theme that sex sells

The influence of childhood abuse in creating future perpetrators

And I'm sure there are many other factors that could be added to such a list. It's a complex problem requiring multifaceted solutions. Locking an offender away might save some children from that particular person, which in itself is a worthwhile goal, but it will do nothing to prevent the spawning of many more such offenders.

Bronwyn,

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm simply being side-tracked into discussing a subject that I really don't want to discuss any further.
The thread was -"Who would you like to live next door to you ..."

I studied Sociology at Uni. and I could argue this case - ad nauseaum - but I don't want to. And as far as I'm concerned - that's that.

Bye!

It's not a topic I enjoy discussing either Foxy, but if someone had taken the time to respond to a statement I'd made, I would at least have the courtesy to attempt some sort of reply. Or at the very least I wouldn't have made a reply at all. Your petulant little dummy spit sent me the message that you've got the answers but that I'm not worth responding to. Most un-christian like I would have thought for someone who's always very keen to proclaim their christian status.

Dear Bronwyn,

I'm usually quite polite. But I feel so passionately about this subject that rather than go into a tirade, I decided to go for the
'say nothing' approach and apparently I offended you.

Seeing as you persisted, I've decided to reply. Firstly I apologise for any discourtesy that you felt I heaped on you - it was your reference to values that got to me, rather than your reference to Christianity. If you read some of my earlier posts - you would realize that although I am a Christian, I do have doubts.

As far as the topic of pedophiles is concerned - I am entirely on the side of the victim. In our society, pedophiles have broken the law.
And they should be punished. The reasons for their behaviour are many and varied - as you point out.
But I feel it's like a bottomless pit - for every answer - there will always be another question ...I prefer help be given to the victims.

Bronwyn,

I want to add that studies and research into causes - is all very well, but it takes decades and a multitude of studies to reach conclusions and for government bodies to act. In the meantime - what do we say to the victims. Their abuse continues.

The only weapon that we currently have is the law. By making this an illegal offense and punishable under the law - is the only deterent that at least in part works.

“And no, I do not think that each case should be look at individually.”

Wow. That is truly extraordinary Foxy.

So you think that the full spectrum of paedophilic offences should incur the same level of community loathing and the same penalties, so long as penetration is involved? Would this include the thousands of paedophiles who are voyeurs looking at images but never perpetrating a physical action upon a child themselves? Would it include an 18 year old male who has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend (or 16 and 15, depending on the age of consent)? How about a 35 year old and a 17 year old?

“I am entirely on the side of the victim”

Well, that is not the entirely best position to hold. Sure you need to be on the side of the victim, but you should also be mindful of the circumstances that led a perpetrator to offend, and give them some sympathy and understanding, if they deserve it, which they often do to some extent.

I think that there is a very unfortunate aspect to your polarised view on this; the offender gets nothing other than complete disdain and the victim gets 100% of the support. Well, things are not always that black and white….and every case needs to be carefully looked at to determine just how black and white it is.

“The only weapon that we currently have is the law.”

No. We have much more than the law. Education, both of kids and parents, and neighbourhood watch programs and the like which encourage everyone do their community policing duty and look out for suspicious characters.

If would-be offenders know that kids and their parents are tuned into the dangers and that the whole community is looking out for potentially dangerous strangers, then their room to move is greatly reduced.

Lugwig, Bronwyn, thanks to you both for your efforts to bring some balance to this discussion. Given the extremity of the social stigma attached to this issue it takes courage and integrity to stand up and call for some balance.

The willfull abuse of children is foul in whatever form it comes. I don't get how some seem able to ignore or excuse certain types of abuse which does real harm to children and then suggest because there is a sexual element to another type of abuse that it is as bad as abuse can be.

Is the parent who physically tortures their child (burning with cigarette butts etc) committing a lesser crime than the person who looks at pictures of kids on the web?

Is the parent who destroys their childs self esteme by continual emotional abuse always doing less harm than those who sexually abuse a child?

Are parents who choose to involve their kids in disputes with the other parent somehow less to blame than someone who harms a child in other ways but with a similar level of harm to the child?

The main difference I see is that the person who is an abuser of their own kids may not pose a risk to my child, the serial paedophile may. The abuse can be as willfull and as harmful to the children concerned and is therefore as repugnant.

R0bert

Wow, look where this thread's gone! Interesting arguments from all concerned.

I think on the issue of paedophilia my own position is somewhere between Bronwyn's and Ludwig's :) There certainly seems to be a bit of a 'moral panic' about it of late, and I am sometimes dubious about the inclusion of some kinds of sexual relations - such as those to which Ludwig alludes - as constituting the most reviled of crimes,

Further to the interesting and useful consideration of the nuances of one of our culture's most reviled categories, the departure of the discussion from its implicit association with refugees is also pleasing.

A poor start, perhaps - but ultimately an interesting discussion :)

Foxy

Thank you for your apology. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one but it's been a good debate. I was only drawn into it in the first place because of the reference to refugees and yet I've spent most of the time discussing paedophiles!

I agree it's a difficult topic. It does seem like a botttomless pit and you're right for every answer there's always another question. But I think we owe it to the victims just the same to keep asking those questions no matter how hard they might seem.

Like you, my sympathy is very much for the victims and I agree offenders should be punished. I just see many more shades of grey in this debate than you do, that's all. And while I'm not in any way excusing the abhorrence of the crime, I do think it needs to be remembered that perpetrators are very often victims as well.